Regular readers will know that I share many of 3Ts philosophies. They may also know that I am also an avid gricer (no, not a train spotter - a rail enthusiast). And on this matter I am torn.
Nationalised rail had huge benefits. Design, production and maintenance of locomotives and rolling stock was extremely efficient and in many respects the UK led the world. But the operation of the railways in BR's later years was a shambles. It had no customer focus, was union led and paid more heed to the needs of the staff than to the customers' requirements. So change was necessary.
The model used to privatise the railways was just about the worst that could have been devised. Separating the train operators from the infrastructure provider was a mistake. The complication brought about by the Rolling Stock providers made matters worse. Public subsidies to the railways now are far greater than pre-privatisation. There is no effective competition on most routes. Change is necessary again.
Much as it grieves me to say so I believe the only effective answer is renationalisation but with safeguards to ensure that all the best is preserved but that the network does not descend into the chaos that was evident in the 1970s (that decade again!).
Far from "doing civil servants' dirty work" Dr Beeching's cuts actually saved the railways from total oblivion. By the time his report was published some 3,000 miles of route had already been closed in the preceding 15 years. Among the problems he identified:
- 50% of the stations produced just 2% of the passengers
- 35% of the route miles carried just 1% of the passengers
- more than 1,700 stations had annual receipts of less than £2,500 (£48k at today's prices, less than £1,000 per week.
- Losses were running at £300k per day (£2.1bn per annum at today’s prices)
Obviously "Something had to be done".